James Calwile v. Richard Bazzle

Filing 920081028

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6978

JAMES CHARLES CALWILE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:07-cv-03100-HMH)

Submitted:

October 21, 2008

Decided:

October 28, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Charles Calwile, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: James Charles Calwile, a South Carolina prisoner,

seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. this case to a magistrate The district court referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

judge

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised Calwile that failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Calwile failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a

judge's

recommendation

necessary

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of

noncompliance.

See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,

621-22 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3032 (2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Calwile has waived appellate

review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3